ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th November 2017, 02:32 PM   #1841
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,784
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
Someone rather important to the Union seemed to agree with you, at least before 1861.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws, but to break up both, and make new ones." —Abraham Lincoln, 1848
Very interesting, thank you.

Not that I'm opposed to the Civil War, but that this does suggest secession wasn't obviously wrong.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 02:35 PM   #1842
TheGoldcountry
Illuminator
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,744
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post


I don't feel any need to condemn or deride Southerners. I feel the need to condemn and deride people who, even today, continue to glorify the Confederacy and its cause. I will do that if the person doing the glorification is from the North, Europe, or Mars.

Slavery was a dark stain on our national history and the Confederacy's goal was to make that stain permanent. Some people are in denial of that fact, some people revel in it.
^^^this
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 02:56 PM   #1843
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,727
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Yes, what are you defending?

Not slavery; you've said that numerous times.
Not history; you've shown that you were largely unaware of what the Confederacy actually said and did. (through no fault of your own, but having been indoctrinated into Lost Cause mythology, as many of us were.)

As near as I can figure, you seem to be solely fixated on defending the righteousness of Southerners to be proud of their ancestors, regardless of how abhorrent (your word) their cause actually was.
Yeah... no. At best I'm defending the entirety of historical Southerners from the broad-brush condemnation of them as being shallow, one-dimensional caricatures who lack depth. They should be allowed to be proud of some aspects of their ancestors, instead of seeing their ancestors permanently condemned for one thing.
It has been pointed out that people are not condemning Southerners, they are condemning people who defend the confederacy, which was designed to protect and promote an obscenity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Why? Isn't it better to come to terms with what they actually stood for and move on than to glorify what the the Confederacy did as noble? Yes, they thought what they were doing was noble. Everyone is the hero of their own story, but the legacy of the Confederacy is one of ongoing violence, hatred, and bigotry that continues to be embraced by some and hurt others to this day.

What is there to be proud of?
There doesn't need to be pride or glory involved in order to object to continued derision and condemnation.

Why do you need to continue to condemn and deride southerners for something done by their great=great-grandparents at best (given that a large number of southerners didn't do anything at all and just lived in the south)? Why do you feel it necessary to rub people's noses in it? And why don't you feel the need to rub Northerner noses, or European noses in it as well, given that they were only marginally ahead of the game on this particular topic?
I don't see anyone condemning the great great grandsons of Stonewall Jackson.

I do see people condemning David Duke.

If you are proud of your ancestor's role in fighting to preserve slavery, then you are worthy of contempt.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 03:10 PM   #1844
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,727
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Indeed - I know that I am not right, but that others are *far* more wrong. My point about subscribing to some of the ideas of the Just War theory is also pertinent, and I guess you have similar criteria.
War is wrong, but can be justified if fighting it addresses a thing that I believe to be a bigger wrong and has a fair chance of success.
Basically, if you believe strongly enough and you think you can get away with it, it's okay to fight other people based on your beliefs?

Again, I'll point out that the anti-abortionist holds the same basic principle as you do. He also believes that people should be treated equally, and have an equal right to life. He numbers fetuses among people, where you do not. And he believes that his aggression in blowing up the abortion clinic is justified because it addresses a bigger wrong (the murder of innocent fetuses who have no ability to defend themselves) and has a fair chance at preventing the death of more innocents than he has himself killed.
I was going to add that the question of "wrong" was open to definition.

Not quite.
My morals are only based on my values, which are only based on my emotions, but at least they are very simple. Minimising suffering is good. If one has a choice where all options result in suffering for others, then the least bad option is the one that minimises the suffering.

If an anti abortionist can show that abortions cause more suffering of sentient beings than refusing abortions, then they'd convince me of their case.



Your argument could be used to promote inaction against Nazi Germany - and it is not Godwining to mention the Confederacy and Nazi Germany in the same breath.

In one, an entire group of humans were not really people, and could be worked to death and maltreated by individuals whilst in the other a different group were subhuman and were to be worked to death and murdered by the state.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 03:33 PM   #1845
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,784
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Just look at America today. "Real Americans" are those people who live in midwest. That's the "heart of America." Ignore the fact that half the people in the US live on the coasts, it is still the "middle America" who thinks they get to define "culture."
Yes, who counts as the culture is a real problem for cultural relativists, but it's not the only one.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 01:54 PM   #1846
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,056
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
Someone rather important to the Union seemed to agree with you, at least before 1861.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws, but to break up both, and make new ones." —Abraham Lincoln, 1848
I notice that there is not any mention of the right to seize hundreds of millions of dollars in land and materiel from the government one has seceded from. Nor is there mention of firing unprovoked on soldiers of said government.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 02:49 PM   #1847
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,195
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I was going to add that the question of "wrong" was open to definition.

Not quite.
My morals are only based on my values, which are only based on my emotions, but at least they are very simple. Minimising suffering is good. If one has a choice where all options result in suffering for others, then the least bad option is the one that minimises the suffering.

If an anti abortionist can show that abortions cause more suffering of sentient beings than refusing abortions, then they'd convince me of their case.



Your argument could be used to promote inaction against Nazi Germany - and it is not Godwining to mention the Confederacy and Nazi Germany in the same breath.

In one, an entire group of humans were not really people, and could be worked to death and maltreated by individuals whilst in the other a different group were subhuman and were to be worked to death and murdered by the state.
And, it should be repeated, both Confederates and Nazis had virtually all the other western cultures lined up against them, so while their internal culture was that brutality of some races was ok, the rest of western culture said "No, it's not."
__________________
- "Who is the Greater Fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the Fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 05:12 PM   #1848
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,118
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws, but to break up both, and make new ones." —Abraham Lincoln, 1848
I notice that there is not any mention of the right to seize hundreds of millions of dollars in land and materiel from the government one has seceded from. Nor is there mention of firing unprovoked on soldiers of said government.
Except for the highlighted bit, I suppose.

As for firing on the soldiers... Once seceded, those soldiers became a hostile foreign military who refused to leave.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 05:14 PM   #1849
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,118
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
And, it should be repeated, both Confederates and Nazis had virtually all the other western cultures lined up against them, so while their internal culture was that brutality of some races was ok, the rest of western culture said "No, it's not."
That's not really true of Nazis. The rest of the world really didn't give much of a crap about what the Nazis were doing to the jews. They really only cared about the fact that Germans were invading other countries. The concentration camps and other horrific mistreatment didn't really become an issue for the allies until they came face-to-face with it... toward the end of the war.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 05:35 PM   #1850
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,887
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That's not really true of Nazis. The rest of the world really didn't give much of a crap about what the Nazis were doing to the jews. They really only cared about the fact that Germans were invading other countries. The concentration camps and other horrific mistreatment didn't really become an issue for the allies until they came face-to-face with it... toward the end of the war.

Again, a profound ignorance of history on display here. The rest of the world mostly didn't know what the Nazis were doing to the Jews. Of those that did, most were collaborators who only knew about the concentration/work camps, not the death camps and mass graves.

The horrors of the camps became as issue toward the end of the war because that was when the allies finally became fully aware of the nature of those horrors, and could not deny their existence.

Prior to the liberation of the camps, multiple sources tried to alert the rest of the world to what was going on. Some, such as Churchill, were profoundly disturbed and concerned at what little they were aware of already. Others simply refused to believe the reports, because they could not accept that human beings could be so utterly callous and cruel as to attempt to exterminate an entire ethnic group totaling millions of people in such a causal and mechanistic way. In fact, most people considered the early reports to be nothing more than war-hawk propaganda. Even Jews in the US tried to suppress the reports, believing them to be such, and feared a backlash against the Jewish community as a result.

It wasn't until films of the camps began to come out that people really understood what was going on, the sheer scale of the atrocity, and even then had a hard time believing that humans could do such a thing.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 06:14 PM   #1851
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,973
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
As for firing on the soldiers... Once seceded, those soldiers became a hostile foreign military who refused to leave.
Except, of course, the Union did not recognize that secession, so those soldiers were attacked by a hostile and unprovoked rebellion.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 02:51 AM   #1852
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,164
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Except for the highlighted bit, I suppose.

As for firing on the soldiers... Once seceded, those soldiers became a hostile foreign military who refused to leave.
Next time a gang member shoots a cop so he can continue raping a victim, I'll be sure to send him your warmest regards.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 05:11 AM   #1853
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,521
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That's not really true of Nazis. The rest of the world really didn't give much of a crap about what the Nazis were doing to the jews. They really only cared about the fact that Germans were invading other countries. The concentration camps and other horrific mistreatment didn't really become an issue for the allies until they came face-to-face with it... toward the end of the war.
You're really hashing history here.

Before WW2 broke out, 1 September 1939, German (and Austrian) Jews were treated horribly and legally segregated from society but not (yet) locked up in concentration camps or mass murdered in extermination camps. The main policy aim seems to have been that they emigrate, which about 300,000 out of 500,000 did. Yes, in hindsight an episode like the St. Louis is despicable, but, really, who'd think then what would happen a few years later?

After the invasion of Poland, the Polish Jews were largely holed up in ghettos. On the coattails of the Wehrmacht invading the Soviet Union, Einsatzgruppen operated there who rounded up and mass-murdered the Jews there. In the West (France, Benelux, Denmark, Norway), initially only administrative measures were taken to segregate Jews (and tally them).

The decision for the Endlösung (Final Solution) was only taken at the Wannsee Conference, 20 January 1942. Only after that, the extermination camps (Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor, Majdanek, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau) were set up to industrially mass-murder Jews. The first four (Aktion Reinhardt) camps primarily for the Polish Jews, Auschwitz primarily for the rest. And by end of 1943, most of it was already over. For instance, the systematic rounding up and deportation of Dutch Jews took place in 1942 and 1943; later transports, like with the Frank family, were only of Jews who had gone into hiding and had been discovered. The only major operation at Auschwitz in 1944 was that of the 450,000 Hungarian Jews, in May/June 1944, who had become prey to Eichmann and his cronies after Horthy had been replaced by the Arrow Cross party, in March 1944. And in November 1944, Himmler ordered all gassing operations at the extermination camps to stop.

When exactly and what do you expect the Allies should have done? "Bomb the tracks to Auschwitz"? That's the facile statement that's often made, but really, specify when they should have done that and show that they were capable of that; Auschwitz is a long way flying from London. By the time the Allies had secured a relevant part of France, the Holocaust was all but over.

And while the Allies did receive reports of what was going in Auschwitz from escaped inmates as early as 1942, what Luchog said is very much applicable too: it was simply too unbelievable that a civilized nation would do such a thing.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 12:01 PM   #1854
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,118
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Again, a profound ignorance of history on display here. The rest of the world mostly didn't know what the Nazis were doing to the Jews. Of those that did, most were collaborators who only knew about the concentration/work camps, not the death camps and mass graves.

The horrors of the camps became as issue toward the end of the war because that was when the allies finally became fully aware of the nature of those horrors, and could not deny their existence.

Prior to the liberation of the camps, multiple sources tried to alert the rest of the world to what was going on. Some, such as Churchill, were profoundly disturbed and concerned at what little they were aware of already. Others simply refused to believe the reports, because they could not accept that human beings could be so utterly callous and cruel as to attempt to exterminate an entire ethnic group totaling millions of people in such a causal and mechanistic way. In fact, most people considered the early reports to be nothing more than war-hawk propaganda. Even Jews in the US tried to suppress the reports, believing them to be such, and feared a backlash against the Jewish community as a result.

It wasn't until films of the camps began to come out that people really understood what was going on, the sheer scale of the atrocity, and even then had a hard time believing that humans could do such a thing.
Yeah... most of the world didn't know about the camps and the killing. But the persecution of jews, the squashing of their rights, and their treatment as second class citizens wasn't really a secret.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 12:04 PM   #1855
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,118
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Except, of course, the Union did not recognize that secession, so those soldiers were attacked by a hostile and unprovoked rebellion.
So... according to what was believed at the time, states had the right to secede - they had the right to dissolve their ties to the union. They did so. The union then changed its mind and decided not to recognize that secession. Therefore the secessionists were hostile and unprovoked. Interesting.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 12:05 PM   #1856
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,118
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Next time a gang member shoots a cop so he can continue raping a victim, I'll be sure to send him your warmest regards.
WTH? That doesn't even make sense.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 12:15 PM   #1857
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,727
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
So... according to what was believed at the time, states had the right to secede - they had the right to dissolve their ties to the union. They did so. The union then changed its mind and decided not to recognize that secession. Therefore the secessionists were hostile and unprovoked. Interesting.
That is really missing the point about these statues.

They were mostly put up by the white supremacist organisation, the daughters of the Confederacy. They were put up in prominent places way after the war. Many of them were put up when the Civil Rights movement were starting, and were intended to intimidate blacks. They are just marginally more subtle than a bronze statue of a noose in front of a burning cross.

They are not honouring anything that is worthy of honour.

The Confederacy has no redeeming features. The *South* does, but not the Confederacy.

There is nothing to be proud of in fighting for an obscenity.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 12:16 PM   #1858
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,118
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
You're really hashing history here.

Before WW2 broke out, 1 September 1939, German (and Austrian) Jews were treated horribly and legally segregated from society but not (yet) locked up in concentration camps or mass murdered in extermination camps. The main policy aim seems to have been that they emigrate, which about 300,000 out of 500,000 did. Yes, in hindsight an episode like the St. Louis is despicable, but, really, who'd think then what would happen a few years later?

After the invasion of Poland, the Polish Jews were largely holed up in ghettos. On the coattails of the Wehrmacht invading the Soviet Union, Einsatzgruppen operated there who rounded up and mass-murdered the Jews there. In the West (France, Benelux, Denmark, Norway), initially only administrative measures were taken to segregate Jews (and tally them).

The decision for the Endlösung (Final Solution) was only taken at the Wannsee Conference, 20 January 1942. Only after that, the extermination camps (Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor, Majdanek, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau) were set up to industrially mass-murder Jews. The first four (Aktion Reinhardt) camps primarily for the Polish Jews, Auschwitz primarily for the rest. And by end of 1943, most of it was already over. For instance, the systematic rounding up and deportation of Dutch Jews took place in 1942 and 1943; later transports, like with the Frank family, were only of Jews who had gone into hiding and had been discovered. The only major operation at Auschwitz in 1944 was that of the 450,000 Hungarian Jews, in May/June 1944, who had become prey to Eichmann and his cronies after Horthy had been replaced by the Arrow Cross party, in March 1944. And in November 1944, Himmler ordered all gassing operations at the extermination camps to stop.

When exactly and what do you expect the Allies should have done? "Bomb the tracks to Auschwitz"? That's the facile statement that's often made, but really, specify when they should have done that and show that they were capable of that; Auschwitz is a long way flying from London. By the time the Allies had secured a relevant part of France, the Holocaust was all but over.

And while the Allies did receive reports of what was going in Auschwitz from escaped inmates as early as 1942, what Luchog said is very much applicable too: it was simply too unbelievable that a civilized nation would do such a thing.
Either way, the Allies weren't "lined up against the NAzis" because of their treatment of jews. So The Greater Fool's claim:
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
And, it should be repeated, both Confederates and Nazis had virtually all the other western cultures lined up against them, so while their internal culture was that brutality of some races was ok, the rest of western culture said "No, it's not."
Is still false. No matter how you cut it up, Nazi treatment of the Jews was never a reason for the military response of the Allies. And it's not even a matter of knowing about the camps or anything - there was no secret about Jews being treated as second class citizens, losing rights, and otherwise being persecuted. That was all known... and the Allies didn't actually care about that. If Germany hand't gone and invaded another country, the Allies wouldn't just left them alone to perform their atrocities.

It's pretty much what happens in almost every other case of gross human rights violations - as long as the country performing those atrocities keeps it within their own borders, nobody wants to get involved.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 12:20 PM   #1859
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,068
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
So... according to what was believed at the time, states had the right to secede - they had the right to dissolve their ties to the union. They did so. The union then changed its mind and decided not to recognize that secession. Therefore the secessionists were hostile and unprovoked. Interesting.
Not quite - there was a rather lively debate on whether states could leave the Union right up to the time of the ACW. The seceding states certainly did think they had a right to leave, but the Union government never felt that states did have that right - the CSA was never recognized as a sovereign state and all of the states from the confederacy could have kept their representatives in Congress and the Senate - several states claimed by both sides like Kentucky had representatives in both the USA and CSA governments.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 12:32 PM   #1860
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,973
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
So... according to what was believed at the time, states had the right to secede - they had the right to dissolve their ties to the union. They did so. The union then changed its mind and decided not to recognize that secession. Therefore the secessionists were hostile and unprovoked. Interesting.
EC, at this point, you've shown that your understanding of Civil War history is so muddled, you're really going have to provide sources for these things you're claiming. For your own benefit, if nothing else.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 12:51 PM   #1861
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,195
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Either way, the Allies weren't "lined up against the NAzis" because of their treatment of jews. So The Greater Fool's claim:
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool
And, it should be repeated, both Confederates and Nazis had virtually all the other western cultures lined up against them, so while their internal culture was that brutality of some races was ok, the rest of western culture said "No, it's not."
Is still false. No matter how you cut it up, Nazi treatment of the Jews was never a reason for the military response of the Allies.
Uh, you mind pointing out where I said that Western Cultures went to war over the abuse of jews (or slaves, for that matter). Thanks ever so much.

The claim I made is that western cultures were against abusing the respective ethnic minorities of the time.

I also notice you don't take exception to my statement as regards the Confederacy. As such, do you accept that the Confederacy's attachment to slavery was out of step with the rest of western culture.

"Cultural moral relativism" has to be viewed in a ridiculously narrow and meaningless way to try to make slavery (and destruction of jews) acceptable "from a certain point of view."
__________________
- "Who is the Greater Fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the Fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 01:11 PM   #1862
Hevneren
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
WTH? That doesn't even make sense.
It's an analogy. The rebels attacked Fort Sumter so they could continue brutalizing black people, just like the hypothetcal gang member shoots the cop so he can continue raping the woman. Since you seem to support what the rebels did, some kind of logic presumably dictates that you support the gang member's actions too.

Last edited by Hevneren; 10th November 2017 at 01:14 PM.
Hevneren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 01:54 PM   #1863
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,310
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
So... according to what was believed at the time, states had the right to secede - they had the right to dissolve their ties to the union.
Really? Because when SC tried in the 1830's it did not go so well.

Some noises about secession by New England in 1812 didn't go over well either.

Quote:
They did so.
Some of them did so. More accurately some hotheads in some of the Southern states did so.

Quote:
The union then changed its mind and decided not to recognize that secession.
Never at any point since the signing of the Constitution did the Union say seceeding was just fine and dandy.

Quote:
Therefore the secessionists were hostile and unprovoked. Interesting.
Excuse-makers have tied for generations to justify the attack on Fort Sumter but there's just no excuse for it beyond giving Davis' something to rally the South around when the Union reacted to it.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 01:57 PM   #1864
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,310
BTW, 'Nobody went to war with Nazi Germany over the Jews' is a classic holocaust/Nazi apologist tactic that is essentially a poor attempt at blame shifting.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 02:47 PM   #1865
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,056
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Except for the highlighted bit, I suppose.

As for firing on the soldiers... Once seceded, those soldiers became a hostile foreign military who refused to leave.
No, land owned by the US government was still owned by the US government. If the south had entered into negotiations to claim it things may have been very different. Instead they made it clear they had no intentions of ever legally claiming it.
They didn't say "we're taking our bats and ball and playing in our yard," they said "we're taking your bats and balls and playing in our yard."
That alone was an open act of war.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 02:54 PM   #1866
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,887
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Is still false. No matter how you cut it up, Nazi treatment of the Jews was never a reason for the military response of the Allies. And it's not even a matter of knowing about the camps or anything - there was no secret about Jews being treated as second class citizens, losing rights, and otherwise being persecuted. That was all known... and the Allies didn't actually care about that. If Germany hand't gone and invaded another country, the Allies wouldn't just left them alone to perform their atrocities.

Pretty much every industrialized country at the time had their own oppressed minorities, some of them still do. But it's a huge step from oppressing a minority to wholesale mechanized extermination of a minority.

Are you one of those fanatics who thinks the Iraq war was solely about oil, or ignorant types who think it was solely about WMDs? Then congratulations, you're apparently in wide company. Those of us who were paying attention noted that a large part of the reason we were there, regardless of the validity of the justifications used, was because of the attempted ethnic cleansing of the Kurds, and repression of other minorities.

Did you miss the entire Kosovo War in the late 1990s?

Really, there are plenty of incidents where nations, including the US, have stepped in with diplomatic, economic, and yes even military action to protect oppressed minorities.

It's fairly self-serving to claim that the US wouldn't have stepped into stop the Holocaust if they had known about it, since they didn't really know about it until the war in Europe was nearly over anyway. And it didn't even start until halfway through the war, as has been pointed out. Even then, Churchill was pushing England very hard to do something about what was known, but it's rather hard to go it alone when you're a country the size of the UK taking on a far larger and better equipped military force.

Quote:
It's pretty much what happens in almost every other case of gross human rights violations - as long as the country performing those atrocities keeps it within their own borders, nobody wants to get involved.

Not only ignorant of history, but ignorant of the modern world as well. At least your ignorance is consistent. Would you like to take a guess as to how many countries have been slapped with severe economic sanctions due to human rights violations right at this point in time? How about how many NGOs are currently working worldwide to address human rights violations? What colour is the sky in your world, is it blue like in the real world?
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 10th November 2017 at 02:56 PM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.